Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Joy Christian's disproof of Bell

  1. May 14, 2010 #1
    For several years Joy Christiaan has been publishing about the disproof of Bell in a typical EPR setup, his latest (?) publication being http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0904/0904.4259v3.pdf" [Broken].

    In a nutshell his argument is that Bell uses an invalid topology for the EPR elements of reality (1D instead of 3D). When using Clifford algebra the author says he can reproduce the Bell inequalities.

    Does he have a valid argument here?

    This http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/~aephraim/2206/Sprague-ChristianDisproofBell.pdf" [Broken] further summarizes his arguments

    ps. I haven't seen his articles being published somewhere else then Arxiv, but Carlos Castro references him claiming about the same http://www.m-hikari.com/astp/astp2007/astp9-12-2007/castroASTP9-12-2007.pdf" [Broken].
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. May 14, 2010 #2
    Re: Joy Cristiaans disproof of Bell

    To my knowledge, his arguments are not taken very seriously, as they would require serious modifications in the basic axioms of QM.

    The crux of his argument is a denial that observables should only correspond to real numbers, but that more complicated algebraic quantities (such as spinors, or vectors) should be considered "observables". That is fine (I mean, interesting) at a general level in an epistemological discussion, but that is not enough at a technical level : in QM observables are self-adjoint operators, and the results of measurements are in the spectra of them. For his argument to be valid, he would need considerably more work to refund the entire axiomatization of QM.
     
  4. May 14, 2010 #3
    Re: Joy Cristiaans disproof of Bell

    Not sure though why he hasn't been able to get his ideas published in Foundations of Physics. With 't Hooft as chief editor that should not be a problem...
     
  5. May 14, 2010 #4

    DrChinese

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Joy Cristiaans disproof of Bell

    There are at least a dozen authors presenting "disproofs" of Bell. Usually, as with Christian, it involves some esoteric point in Bell. However, none of these is accepted and I have not read any that make anything close to a cogent argument. The best of the lot, for my money, is the De Raedt program (defects of which I have posted on extensively in another thread).

    So really, it just boils down to: what are your requirements for a successful Bell proof? Clearly some authors don't like Bell's streamline approach.
     
  6. May 14, 2010 #5
    Re: Joy Cristiaans disproof of Bell

    I am trying to follow his reasoning, but I have trouble understanding the math exactly. His arguments don't seem so unreasonable, so it would be interesting to test it in a de Raedt type simulation (without using the effect of a time window as de Raedt does).

    (for those who don't know the de Raedt model: it's a numerical 'event by event' simulation that calculates the total effect of individual pairs of photons in an EPR-B setup)
     
  7. May 14, 2010 #6

    Fredrik

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Joy Cristiaans disproof of Bell

    I tried to read one of his "disproof" articles some time ago, and it was pure garbage. It was more badly written than I thought was possible for a physics article, so it was impossible to follow his reasoning. I recommend that you don't waste your time on any of his work, at least until he's been able to produce something that can pass the peer review process.

    By the way, when I started a thread about the article I was trying to understand (before I realized that his "argument" was completely incoherent), one of the moderators deleted the thread and gave me a formal warning for linking to unpublished stuff. A bit of an overreaction perhaps, but the article was garbage and I agree that it wasn't worthy of a discussion in the QM forum.

    I find this comment interesting. Does Foundations of Physics have a bad reputation, or are you just saying that you have such a low opinion of 't Hooft that you expect his journal to publish nonsense? Have they published bad stuff in the past?
     
  8. May 15, 2010 #7
    Re: Joy Cristiaans disproof of Bell

    I believe that the jab at t' Hooft is due to his recent work in hidden variable theories.

    From my examination, the paper linked in the OP, doesn't seem to be “Pure Garbage”, it also seems possible to follow his reasoning. Saying that you don't understand is not a valid criticism of a theory.

    After reading the paper it seems good, the crux of his argument doesn't seem to be as described by humanino. The crux of his argument is that Bell made a topology error, that when corrected gives the same QM results for entangled states but allows local realism.
     
  9. May 15, 2010 #8

    Cthugha

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Re: Joy Cristiaans disproof of Bell

    This is not true. Christian assumes that the spin values in question are not +1 and -1, but numbers from Clifford algebra. Then it is almost trivial to violate the Bell inequalities using any model. However, there is no good reason why one should assume eigenvalues to be members of Clifford algebra, so Christian pulls up the magic topology argument, which is just ridiculous in my opinion.

    Foundations of Physics is aimed at the more philosophical side of physics and also concerned about not-so-mainstream stuff in order to be able to publish serious out-of-the-box thinking. However, this also means that the published articles are sometimes not out-of-the-box, but plain wrong. Personally I am not really interested in this kind of debates and ignore FoP, but given the rather small number of other journals publishing stuff on this topic I think it deserves a place in the scientific community.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2010
  10. May 15, 2010 #9

    Fredrik

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Joy Cristiaans disproof of Bell

    It definitely wasn't possible to follow the article I read back then. I wasn't exaggerating about how bad it was. After that experience I would need a very good reason to read even a single line of text from any of his articles. So I didn't even click the link in the OP.

    I'm not saying that there was an argument in his paper that I didn't understand. I'm saying that the stuff in the paper I read doesn't qualify as an argument. That's definitely valid criticism of the contents of an article.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2010
  11. May 15, 2010 #10
    Re: Joy Cristiaans disproof of Bell

    That is not a crux, that is the title of the paper, and is just a more vague description.
     
  12. May 15, 2010 #11
    Re: Joy Cristiaans disproof of Bell

    I agree with Cthugha's comments about FoP. Note that
    't Hooft became chief editor to make sure quack articles don't get published (this became an issue before he was involved there).

    But 't Hooft is sympathetic toward non-mainstream ideas about quantum mechanics, so you will certainly not get a knee jerk rejection of articles just because they don't stick to some accepted dogma like e.g. that the violation of Bell's inequalities has ruled out local hidden variable theories.

    As 't Hooft has said many times: no-go theorems always contain hidden assumptions...
     
  13. May 15, 2010 #12

    Fredrik

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Joy Cristiaans disproof of Bell

    OK, that's a much milder statement than your previous one, which suggested that he would be willing to publish anything. This one is easier to believe. :smile: The reason I care at all is that I've been thinking about writing something about the MWI and about interpretations in general, and if I ever do that, it would be good to know if this journal has a bad reputation.
     
  14. May 15, 2010 #13
    Re: Joy Cristiaans disproof of Bell

    This is good to hear, when I read the article Fredrik mentioned it seemed almost random. I thought perhaps that I was missing something, and now I know that I was: it's pure crap.
     
  15. May 15, 2010 #14
    Re: Joy Cristiaans disproof of Bell

    I do not think it is pure crap, because the mathematics are not invalid, they are just not agreement with one of the basic physics postulate of QM, namely that we measure real numbers, not Clifford numbers. I think it is worth spending one hour of one's life to read.
     
  16. May 16, 2010 #15

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Re: Joy Cristiaans disproof of Bell

    Graingier's commentary, which I came across via a news item in Nature Physics: http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.2223
     
  17. May 16, 2010 #16
    Re: Joy Cristiaans disproof of Bell

    Yes, the reply from Christian to Graingier's criticism can be found http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0703/0703244v12.pdf" [Broken], starting at 'Response # 3'.

    (the main issue raised by Graingier seems to be the extraction of either a + or - result for a spinning particle. Christian's reply is that in Clifford algebra a bi vector naturally has a sense of rotation, and so a sign is naturally available)

    So far I haven't been able to find more recent commentary on Christian's statements then the articles published in 2007.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  18. May 16, 2010 #17
    Re: Joy Cristiaans disproof of Bell

    If you are a mathematician perhaps, but if you spent time reading every non-physical mathematical offering refuting or confirming things, you would die in ignorance. I read it, and I consider it to have been a waste of my time.
     
  19. May 16, 2010 #18

    Fredrik

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Joy Cristiaans disproof of Bell

    Just to clarify, the article I read is not the one linked to in the OP. It had both "disproof" and "Clifford" in the title. I spent a few hours reading it and thinking about it, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.
     
  20. May 16, 2010 #19

    DrChinese

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Joy Cristiaans disproof of Bell

    Thanks for this reference. Local realists want to have it both ways. They say that the predicitions of QM are correct (usually), and that the results are not observer dependent. I just want to see their dataset. That tells everything, for any "disproof".

    It should be a requirement that any local realist publish an appendix to their work with a sample dataset. That way, you could start by seeing what kind of a universe Alice and Bob live in. It would save a lot of otherwise wasted effort.

    Of course, if Christian did that, then it would be obvious where the weakness is.
     
  21. May 16, 2010 #20
    Re: Joy Cristiaans disproof of Bell

    I probably already gave to this very thread half the attention I gave to Christian's original paper...
     
  22. May 16, 2010 #21
    Re: Joy Cristiaans disproof of Bell

    Every silver lining has its cloud. :) Any time and attention used for that paper could be better spent molesting pigeons, or beating the homeless. Anything, but reading another load of tripe.
     
  23. May 17, 2010 #22
    Re: Joy Cristiaans disproof of Bell

    I was hoping for some substantial criticism on the articles. The 'wasting time' remarks now seem to be more motivated by personal preference :smile:.
     
  24. May 17, 2010 #23
    Re: Joy Cristiaans disproof of Bell

    How does one critique a steaming pile of manure? You simply note that it is in fact, manure, and move on.
     
  25. May 17, 2010 #24

    DrChinese

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Joy Cristiaans disproof of Bell

    OK, here is a critique: how can you use the ideas in the paper to construct a local realistic dataset?

    Thanks for the answer to this question.
     
  26. May 17, 2010 #25

    Fredrik

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Joy Cristiaans disproof of Bell

    My dismissal of the other article wasn't based on any personal preference other than that I think arguments should make sense. What I learned from reading it was that articles below a certain threshold of quality are simply not worth the effort, unless it's bad in a funny way, and this one isn't. Wouldn't it be great if we had some sort of system in place that could tell us if an article has passed some sort of minimum requirement? Oh wait, we do.

    By the way, this is from the forum rules:
    Has Christian been able to publish any of his stuff?
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook